Did Scott Watson do it?
December 30th, 2007 at 11:01 am by David FarrarTwo views in the papers today.
Author Keith Hunter is in the HOS claiming more flaws in the case.
The SST article focuses more on the QC who prosecuted rubbishing the claims. A key part for me is:
Davison said it was significant that Watson himself never described seeing a ketch despite his boat being moored almost exactly where Wallace said he dropped the trio.
Montages made of photographs taken that day show no ketch in the area identified by Wallace, but do show Watson’s sloop.
When combined with the evidence of Watson’s sexually aggressive behaviour on the night, his earlier statements that he wanted to kill, and his subsequent actions in cleaning and changing the appearance of his boat, the case was compelling, he said.
The fact that the “mystery ketch” doesn’t exist in a single photograph undermines the ketch theory in my opinion.
No tag for this post.
December 30th, 2007 at 11:05 am
“Scott”???
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 11:16 am
While the evidence against Watson is mostly circumstantial it is nonetheless fairly compelling. He exhibited a guilty mind. He lied about where he went when he left Endeavour Inlet, and he completely scrubbed down and repainted his yacht while he was lying about where he was. What I don’t like about the case is the use of “jail-cell informants” who are paid by the police to claim an accused has confessed while in jail. No accused who plans to plead not guilty confesses to someone sharing their cell. I don’t believe a word such informants say. The issue was raised at the recent Innocence Project conference, it was said to be one of the leading causes of wrongful conviction in many countries.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 11:33 am
No accused who plans to plead not guilty confesses to someone sharing their cell.
That assumes the accused are rational which is unfortunately far from being the case. If they were they wouldn’t have had a long list of criminal convictions which allowed them to be kept in jail cells in the first place. A more telling concern is that the accused might embelish what he had done in order to make him look tough.
As for being a leading cause of wrongful convictions, I seriously have to doubt that. Only the Peter Plumly Walker Case here did a wrongful conviction occur as a result of jail cell informants and even there there was serious criminal activity on the behalf of the accused. In the case of the UK and the US convictions are far more likely to have resulted from police confessions of dubious veracity whether fabricated (‘it’s a fair cop. I’m glad I done the bastard’) or coerced (the birmingham six).
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 11:37 am
David Wayne Tamihere was also convicted on the evidence of cell informants who were paid by the police and palpably lied. The police also framed Tamihere by planting a watch on his son and claiming it belonged to Urban Hoglin. While I do believe Tamihere is guilty (as I believe the evidence shows Watson is guilty), I do not believe someone should be convicted on fabricated evidence. Tamihere should have got a retrial after Urban’s body was found still wearing the watch and nowhere near where the cell informant claimed Tamihere told him it was. But the Court of Appeal was too busy administering a legal system to let justice get a look in.
The evidence that cell informants are responsibe for many miscarriages of justice comes from many countries, according to presentations at the Innocene Project conference, not just NZ.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Watson was convicted by some good and not so good circumstantial evidence but the kicker for me has always been the mans aggressive behavior coupled with his actions following the disappearance of Hope and Smart. Particularly the clean up on his boat and the burning of not only gear off his boat but his clothing. From what I’ve read it seems he disposed of the clothing, including his leather jacket, that he wore on the eve of the crime. The man got rid of his going out gear and lyrics of The Chills great “Cos I love my leather jacket, and I wear it all the time. …”, well, ask yourself.
But then WTF would I know.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am
David Wayne Tamihere was also convicted on the evidence of cell informants who were paid by the police and palpably lied.
False. He was convicted on the basis of a) being identified by witnesses camping with Heidi Parkonen and b) having acquired the keys to the couple’s car and a demonstrably bullshit explanation of how he acquired it. Although the witness identification was less than ideal, it was still strong enough for the Court of Appeal to negate any concerns that they had about the watch.
The police also framed Tamihere by planting a watch on his son and claiming it belonged to Urban Hoglin.
The police planted a watch? I think they found a watch which David had given to his son and claimed that was Urban’s watch.
The evidence that cell informants are responsibe for many miscarriages of justice comes from many countries, according to presentations at the Innocene Project conference, not just NZ.
As far as I am concerned the Innocence project is wrong having looked at more than a few cases of miscarriages of justice in the US and the UK. And in countries in which the police are bad, they simply prefer to beat a confession out of the accused rather than stitch him or her up with a jailhouse informant.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Why? Scott Watson also get his leather jacket from a friend of his who died?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Spam, why did the man get rid of a favourite article of clothing, a leather jacket that he was known to wear every time he went out.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Leather jacket aside for a second, the way the police presented evidence about the hair found on the blanket does suggest that a retrial would be in order. I have my personal theory as to what happened on that fateful evening , but I will let the Innocence Project determine whether the conviction was based on solid foundations? I suggest, not Rob who is infected with narrow tunnel vision ! Our next commissioner of police ? How bad can it get ?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Once again, trial by media. Watson has legal avenues to prove his innocence – why isn’t he using those?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
http://www.newzblog.wordpress.com
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Mike , Legal avenues are often shut down by the judicial system and lawyers know that it is pointless to try futile appeal rights in a corrupt judicial system. I have many examples of judicial corruption . Justice denied mentality is often the status quo procedure from crown law officials . Appeal rights are a sick joke in this country.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
If Watson didn’t kill them they’re not dead.
Anything to say on the subject James or just here to link whore?
Or did you pay David for the advertising space?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Murray , I believe they are dead alright, however the culpability for the horrendous crime should be found elsewhere. He was stitched up from day one by Detective Pope. Watson was not Saint, but he is NOT a double murder.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Watson was No Saint .
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Or is every prisoner and screw that knows Watson wrong New Zealand ?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
It does not matter one iota whether Watson is guilty or not. What should matter to you all, is that this man should never have been convicted on the ‘evidence’ produced by the Crown. Worse, it was sham court-of-law presided over by a sick, incompetent and prejudicial judge who should not have been on the bench. The public were beying for a conviction; the police, the judge and jurers alike, all felt the weight of public pressure and Watson was the fall guy. Golden rule of courtroom antics…Through enough shite and it sticks.
Davison et al, clearly has the investigative skills of a gnat and only parrot’s the ‘evidence’ of the police. Of course he, and the entire judicary all have their professional reputations at stake and most are personal acquiantances. It appears to the majority of NZ’rs that this group of supposedly elite and learned individuals, who are charged with upholding the rights of all members of society, would rather let a man languish in jail for a crime he more than likely did not commit, than have their professional reputations sullied.
To be fair however, in such seemingly complex cases, it can often take a layman with an enquiring mind to sift through mountains of evidence at a later date, to discover gaping holes a mile wide (which in the heat of battle), can often be overlooked by all and sundry. Keith Hunter is that layman.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
whoops ..’throw enough ….”
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Dead right Paul our judicial system needs a “radical rethink ” now. The fact the crown can manipulate trial evidence defies belief ? I base my presumptions on Watson’s innocence on discussions I have had with various people and state for the record that I have never met with the bloke .
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
As far as the ‘alleged’ suppressed evidence goes . Isn’t it time to put up – then I can shut up ?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
http://www.newzblog.wordpress.com
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Scott Watson is the man and rightly convicted.
Can his supporters explain all the nail marks on the hatch cover which clearly show someone/or more attempting to escape.
For a person who was not very worried about his appearance and that of his boat why did he scrub everything including taking tapes out of cases and wiping them.
Yes I know more but can’t go further. Just be assured the right animal is behind bars.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
“Yes I know more but can’t go further.”
Interesting comment raffles . My brain hurts ?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Scott Watson is innocent. The scratches in the hatch have been explained. They go right out to the end of the hatch, which is not accessible by someone inside the boat when the hatch was shut. The scratches had to have been made when the hatch cover was open. The recent article in North and South magazine covered this.
The absence of a photo showing the mystery ketch is irrelevant. All it means is that there was no photo of it, not that it can’t have been involved in the crime. It could have appeared at any time.
The water taxi driver, Guy Wallace, was adamant that he dropped Ben and Oliva off to a ketch. He said (from memory) that it had a blue stripe, brass portholes, and extensive rigging. Scott Watson’s sloop had the wrong number of masts, no blue stipe, no portholes, and no rigging.
Case closed. Or at least you would think.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Raffles:
You have all the investigative and foresnic skills of a gnat too.
If the scratch marks on the hatch where indeed made by a human finger nail(s), then cuticles of the nail(s) will most likely still be imbedded in that hatch cover today. Were the ‘so called scratch marks ‘forensically tested for any cuticle DNA??
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
“Just be assured the right animal is behind bars.”
Raffles, didn’t police say that about poor Rex H ?
Vote:http://www.rexhaig.com/
December 30th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
PM
All you saying they are not recorded and waiting for the next attack.
Is it possible most smart operators hold some ammo for the second battle.
Boy do you have a problem with the legal process and people involved with this case.
I will back Davidson over you anyday.
If you cannot comment without calling me names fuck off
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
oops
Should be: Are you saying
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
….and so it goes on. Do the NZ Police and Crown think we are all idiots or something in this country?
If Smart and Hope where slaughtered on the ‘Blade’ the way they alledge, then that vessel would be awash with DNA belonging to the deceased and impossible to conceal from a skilled, foresenic investigator. And what did they find? Diddly squat! Forget the hair strand… if not planted, then there is a very plausible reason as to how it probably arrived there. A scientific test as to what growth phase the hair strand was in, would also make for some interesting argument.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Come on raffles , what are police holding back ? “Ammo for second battle” . oh please stop the shit @@!! What is the alleged suppressed evidence ?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Isn’t Davidson hooked up Lieanne D ?
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Got to go out and lead a real life.
Will be back am tomorrow hopefully.
Have a good night and hope D4J your brain stops hurting.
If I don’t get back I am away for a couple of weeks with no web access so to all have a great new year with you and yours and I look forward to our chats next year.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
“Have a good night and hope D4J your brain stops hurting.’
Talking about brains and suppressed evidence .
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Do the NZ Police and Crown think we are all idiots or something in this country?
If your arguments are anything to go by, the answer has to be yes. Arguing mutually inconsistent propositions (DNA must have been left behind, the hair doesn’t count, Watson’s cleaning of the boat was completely innocent) without any awareness of the inherent contradiction therein only fills me with the knowledge that Watson isn’t going to be released anytime soon.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
metcalph; and the water taxi dude is mistaken ? Surely this man would know what boat was what ? Reasonable doubt, no way, not in kiwiland where the law is administered and justice is forgotten !!
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
While Davison says no other person could have been responsible, I recall early reports that a witness claimed the pair had gone on to a ‘drug dealers yacht’ and never came back.
That claim coincides with other witness accounts of the boat ‘Lonebird’ in neighbouring bays. The owner of the Lonebird, Sir Thomas Graham Fry — who added the “Sir” to his name by deed poll — was convicted in Sydney of drug smuggling for his role in bringing 500kg of cocaine into Australia in February 2000 .
The Lonebird matches decriptions of the mystery ketch, but was excluded by the Police because it did not appear in photos of boats moored at Furneaux. The Police did not seem to include the possibility that the Lonebord was moored beyond the bay area.
The owner of the Lonebird, Fry, told an Auckland couple, the Alridge’s, that he was at Furneaux that new years eve.
A boat fitting the Lonebird’s description was deliberately sunk at it’s moorings in Gisborne’s harbour basin.
I just read Davison QC in the Listener but he doesn’t touch on the ‘Lonebird theory’.
Anyone know how or if the Lonebird was properly discounted.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
metcalph; and the water taxi dude is mistaken ?
If you read the SST article that DPF introduced in the post, Guy Wallace was initially uncertain about what type of boat it was. It was only after repeated questioning that he hardened his opinion and came to the conclusion that he saw a ketch and in no way was he mistaken. In light of the Photo montage and the location that Guy said he drove the trio to, it is apparent that Guy Wallace was mistaken which happens from time to time all around the world.
Now if Guy Wallace was mistaken about the ketch then his identification of Scott Watson could have also been a mistake, no? However instead of arguing that, the defence wasted time and credibility on trying to prove that the ketch existed. However trying to argue that he wasn’t the guy in the water-taxi, Scott would have to explain exactly what he was doing that night and for some reason, he wasn’t too keen.
All this was thrashed out in the open court at the trial and replayed extensively in the media at the time. For Hunter to now come out and claim that the trial was a farce without a shred of new evidence only indicates that he wouldn’t know what reasonable doubt was if it mugged him in the street and that people should be wary of what he says.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Agreed metcalph ; reasonable doubt , balance of probabilities , circumstantial evidence etc…
What is the alleged hard core police evidence that the bush telegraph instructs has been held back for a rainy day ? I would hate to think I’m backing the wrong horse ?
I am suggesting trial proceedure and actionable negligence is difficult to prove.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I’m not aware of any held-back evidence. The suggestion arose in the context of supposed finger-nail DNA that should have been found in the scratches of the hatch. But if the hatch was cleaned then the fingernails wouldn’t be found there so I assume the suggestion was facetious.
Vote:December 30th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I god told at the time by someone at ESR that the boat was not just cleaned, but scrubbed and disinfected so thoroughly they had never seen such clean surfaces before outside a hospital lab.
So think about why someone would scrub a boat so thoroughly that not only did they find no DNA from the victims (apart from the hair) they found no DNA from anyone at all.
I am sort of with Poneke. I think Watson did it, almost beyond reasonable doubt. But the Police were fairly “lucky” to get a conviction as there is some doubt due to inconsistent testimony etc.
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 12:09 am
Simple: Scott Watson is not a member of the Exclusive Brethren….so he is not guilty.
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 9:29 am
I have known for sometime that Scott Watson was innocent.
I realised this when reading about the DNA evidence against him.
Hairs from a blanket on his boat was examined for human hair, 11 human hairs were examined and genotyped, all negative for Olivia Hope.
Then forensics services obtained genuine hair from Olivia’s hairbrush. Two and only two additional hairs were then obtained from the blanket, both were found to be of Olivia. Evidence was presented in Court that showed the forensic sampling bag had been tampered with.
If you assume only 13 human hairs on this blanket, the probability of this pattern happening (X = no match, O = match)
X X X X X X X X X Event O O
Vote:is 1.5%
The event in this case was obtaining positive hair samples from Olivia’s hairbrush.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:31 am
There isnt anything anyone can do about it.
The powers that be want a clear suspect to be convicted for the disappearances. They have manufactured one.
You might as well complain about 9/11. Che sera sera.
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 9:34 am
“You might as well complain about 9/11. Che sera sera.”
Were members of the New Zealand police flying those airplanes ?
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 9:39 am
They were on programmed flight paths. They turned to suddenly and to late to make a perpendicular impact against the building side for maximum penetration to be human pilots.
This is a characteristic of guided missiles that are controlled by GPS.
A human pilot, pyschologically, would line up the target along way out and make tiny adjustments as he approach. He would not have the reflexes or nerve to fly alongside the building and suddenly turn to make the perpendicular impact at the last second.
Imagine the humilation if he had missed!
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 9:43 am
I prefer to talk about the innocence of Scott Watson, rather than a conspiracy theory thank you .
One question npofg ; would you like to be the Pakistani cricket coach ?
Suppressed evidence anybody ? I mean Bhutto just bumped her head on the sun roof and all that ?
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 9:56 am
I suggest brain matter would have existed in both cases ?
Vote:December 31st, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I would have convicted Watson (if I was on the jury) based on the hair evidence alone. This is powerful physical evidence. This evidence has to weigh more than the opinion of the Wallace, because he could have been mistaken. The hair DNA is no mistaken. Some would argue that the hair could have got to Watson’s clothing by simply coming in contact with the victim in that new year eve’s party. It is possible, but very negligible (probabilistically) and this can be proven by taking a real trial of a population sample (say 100 people).
Vote:January 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Falafulu Fisi Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I would have convicted Watson (if I was on the jury) based on the hair evidence alone. This is powerful physical evidence.
Falafulu. It is not powerful evidence at all. In fact, far from it. Assuming the hair was indeed, that of Oliva’s (and neither ‘planted’ by the police), I could provide you with an extemely plausible reason as to how the hair fibre(s?) was hosted aboard Watson’s vessel (including powerful, convincing imagery). I would further support my argument (amongst several), by having the hair fibre tested to determine at what point it was in its growth cycle.
And as for the arguement put forward by DPF that the inside of the vessel was whistle clean, well, I use to thoroughly clean the inside of my yacht with disenfectant too (and I ain’t killed nobody!) . Watson also built this boat with his own hands thus, it is natural to assume he might clean it more thoroughly and with more ‘caring’ hands (ie. it was his pride and joy). Furthemore, he had programed the maintenance in advance.
Vote:January 1st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Hi Paul,
I agree with you regarding the collection process conducted by the police was shoddy, when considering it proved critical to the crowns case, because the plastic bag that had the evidence sample had a hole in it ? Frigging unbelievable too say the least ? Hairs do fall out of plastic bags onto blankets, or was it another bullet planting exercised discretion by police ? This does cast doubt in Watson’s favour .
However, it is true that suppressed crown evidence was ruled inadmissible by judge ? This is what I want to know ? Was this evidence was struck out at depositions or trial ? It was not hair . Closure on this case is imperative to the integrity of our judicial system .
Vote:January 1st, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Sorry that should have read – if it is true ? And, why was it struck out ?
Vote:January 1st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
The fact that the “mystery ketch” doesn’t exist in a single photograph undermines the ketch theory in my opinion.
As the saying goes DPF….’Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups’
Vote:January 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
There appears to be a lot of misinformation surrounding Scott Watson and the trial. There is also an assumption that if you do not agree with the verdict or have questions regarding the handling of the case, then you are clearly ‘anti-police’ This is unfortunate, and should be very far from the truth.
In fact the opposite should be true in that those who raise questions when a verdict does not appear to have the confidence of the public, are the very people who clearly have a regard for our justice system and police force, and hold them both to the highest standards.
Let’s look at some of the issues mentioned on the above posts.
Firstly above “he lied about where he went when he left Endeavour Inlet and he completely cleaned and repainted his boat” Not true. Scott Waston maintained he left Furneaux Lodge and went to a friend’s at Erie Bay and arrived there around mid-day. This was supported by his friend and his friends two children during every interview with the police. That is up until the police went to the friend’s extensive property and while there came across 250 cannabis plants.
After this discovery the friends testimony changed, all of a sudden Scott Watson arrival time went from midday to ‘sometime in the evening’
The following is a quote from a police job sheet regarding the questioning of Scott Watson’s friend: ” Speak to (friend) at the Blenheim District Court prior to his court appearance to confirm the time that Scott WATSON had arrived at Erie Bay on New Year’s Day, 1988″
His ‘friend’ must have been relieved to then find that having been caught with 250 cannabis plants, he was charged not with cultivation to supply but merely with possession, and was sentenced only to 9 months suspended for 2 years, and 200 hours community service. Not a bad sentence in anyones language.
At the end of the day, the trip the Crown proposed at trial would have required Scott Watson’s boat to have travelled at 22 knots, Watson’s boat in reality has a maximum speed of 6 knots. And unbelievable as it might seem, the police never put the boat in the water and never tested their theory.
Next the cleaning of the boat. Here is some testimony from the trial by Ian Harrison, Police Fingerprint Officer to Nichola Crutchley:
“What proportion of the surface or surfaces appear to have wipe marks …?”
Answer: Approximately 30% of the surface had wipe marks.
“Ok, what is the variation?”
Answer: On the left, the port side of the boat’s bulkhead on the living cabin area, perhaps 50-70% of that surface had wipe marks, the shelf that we have just discovered in photo 63, I would put that at around 30%.
“Right, and what about the other bulkhead?”
Answer: The other bulkhead around 30% again.
“And in the remainder of the flat surfaces that you have discussed?”
Answer: Between 30 and 50
“And on the ceiling?”
Answer: Around 30%
In my humble opinion, maybe Scott Watson’s exquisite cleaning skills were not quite as efficient as we have been led to believe.
Officer Harrison also gave evidence that he examined approximately half of Scott Watson’s cassette tapes, of those examined only 50% showed signs of being wiped. So in total only 25% of the tapes had evidence of being wiped.
As a previous poster says, surely to pull off a presumably violent double murder in a confined area, traces of DNA should have been all over the place.
Also only the exterior of Watson’s boat was painted, not the interior as is often claimed, with several witnesses supporting his claims that he had made known his plans to paint his boat several weeks earlier.
Now for the secret witnesses. Secret witness A has recanted, which leaves only secret witness B (with a long criminal history) who at the time was looking at 10 years for a charge of Grievous Bodily Harm against a female. The morning of his hearing he calls in a policeman to tell him Watson has “confessed” to him. He has his hearing, is surprisingly granted bail and allowed to go home. The GBH charge is dropped and reduced to man assaults female, and he is given a car and a cellphone by the police. He is later sentenced to 1 year in prison concurrent with a sentence for using morphine, it is reduced to 9 months on appeal.
By the way, the original GBH charge consisted of repeatedly punching his female partner in the head, head-butting her into unconciousness, kicking her on the floor, stabbing her in the back with a kitchen knife with such force the knife broke, hitting her round the head with a steel bar before proceeding to get another knife.
I’m going to take a break and come back shortly to discuss the ketch and the DNA evidence.
Vote:January 4th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Keith Hunter has requested me to post the following comments on his behalf:
With too few exceptions these comments rely on prejudice and ignorance – more the shame because where the facts are not publically available, common sense is.
Regarding the police photographs:
There is a photograph on which the police relied which shows Blade absent from its mooring.and no ketch. The police said the photo showed Watson left before 6am. But there are boats absent from the photo which did not leave until much later. Therefore the photo was not taken until much later.
Davison QC says the photo showed no ketch, therefore there was no ketch. Anyone who has seen Murder On The Blade? will know that the police photo was from Furneaux Lodge and its jetty out to about 200 metres offshore. Both the DVD and the book show that all sightings of the ketch were around 300 metres out. In the film Guy Wallace locates the ketch well beyond the limit of the police photo. The sequence is at the end of Part One, about 27 minutes in.
No-one nows how many other photos of the inlet were handed in to the police. They ignored sightings of the ketch and so there is no reason to believe they did not ignore photos of it. I am aware of several photos which were given to the police but never returned.
I am not aware of any time Watson has lied but many times where the prosecutors quoted the evidence falsely. Anywhere else this would be called lying. The claim Watson lied about where he went from Furneaux relies on the police claim that he went out and dropped off bodies in Cook Straight at 4.30pm. This story has him sailing back to Erie Bay by 5pm. That’s eleven miles in half an hour an hour – against the tide. Blade’s top speed is six miles an hour. Work it out.
Watson did not ‘completely scrub down his boat’. The police evidence was that on average 30-50 % of the hard surfaces had brushmarks. There is no evidence at all that anything was ‘scrubbed’. That’s police propaganda. Watson had a steel boat. Steel rusts, especially in salt water. All boat owners clean their boats after a storm, owners of steel boats especially. Blade had been through a storm a couple of weeks earlier. That was not challenged.
He did not ‘completely repaint his yacht while he was lying about where he was’. He painted the cabin sides in Erie Bay, which he had discussed with the Erie Bay caretaker the previous week. The caretaker chose the colour the previous week. Perhaps sometime someone will tell me what benefit Watson would have gained by painting the cabin sides other than gettting a painted cabin. Were all those dozens of people he had partied with at Furneaux going to forget he had been there if he painted the cabin of his boat? Exercising a little common sense would stave off the worst excesses of those who want to sit at the foot of the guillotine
Cha’s made up all his story. His leather jacket is rubbish. He was ‘known to wear (it) every time he went out”? Garbage. There is no leather jacket in this story. Nor is there any burning. Cha, wash your mind out and then try the truth.
The only legal avenue Watson has left is an appeal to the Governor General. That costs money. He has none and is dependant on the good will of lawyers prepared to work pro bono – for nothing. That appeal will come.
Raffles has ‘nail marks which clearly show someone attempting to escape’. Really? How do they show that? What they show is someone scratching a hatch cover – in places only available to be scratched when the cover was open. If Olivia did that, instead of scratching the hatch cover she should have escaped while it was open.
He also has Watson ‘not very worried about his appearance’. Says who? The photograph of him that night on the boat next door just before he went ashore shows a newly shaven man with neatly cut hair and in a clean denim shirt.
He ‘scrubbed everything’? Rubbish . There’s no evidence he scrubbed anything at all. The evidence is of some wipe marks on parts of the interior of the boat.
He ‘took the tapes out and wiped them’? Rubbish. This is as new as Cha’s leather jacket. I agree with Paul’s ‘gnat’. Anyone with half a brain would realise that you wipe the tapes that are already out before you put them back in their cases. On a boat that’s just been through a storm you’d be an idiot not to.
Metcalf’s problem with the ketch is no less ignorant. Whether it was a ketch or not is an irrelevant red herring planted by the police. Ketches have two masts. Wallace may have had to think about whether the boat he saw had two masts. So what?
Now, Metcalf, go into your kitchen and sit on a kitchen chair. Then put one hand on your head and the other on your bum. Notice any difference in terms of height? If you came away from the kitchen would you remember if your hands had been at different heights or would you try to recall whether there had been two cupboards or one in the background? If you had rubbed up either against a boat as high as you hair or against one as low as your bum would you recall that or would you try to work it out by trying to remember how many sticks had been in the background?
If there had been a blue stripe against a white hull about ten inches from your eyes would that capture any of your attention? Or would you think back and recall not just no blue stripe at eye level but no hull at eye level either.
Now think about the other two in the water taxi who saw Ben and Olivia climb on to a ‘chest high’ yacht. Their names were Hayden Morresey and Sarah Dyer. Better still read Trial By Trickery and base your views on the unchallenged facts instead of ignorance and prejudice.
If anyone told David Farrar that Blade had been “scrubbed and disinfected so thoroughly they had never seen such clean surfaces before outside a hospital lab”, they lied. It’s utter rubbish in every sense. There is no mention of disinfectant in the case. Harrison, one of the two police fingerprint experts who went over the boat, told the court there was nothing unusual about the cleaning and the number of prints found. The evidence was of some ‘wiping’ and of nothing more and nothing else. No ‘scrubbing’ except in newspaper headlines and in comments from prosecutors who misled the jury from start to finish.
Keith Hunter, Author/publisher, Trial By Trickery
Vote:January 19th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
It’s always intriguing that when those with an overtly accusatory bent are confronted with facts that contradict their accusations they go silent. Obviously in such cases justice or truth or genuine debate has never been at issue but rather the projection of the accusers personality, neurosis or sociopathy. Scott Watson’s fate has always been infinitely more socio-phychological than evidentially based. Indeed, the case is not based on evidence but arousal.
Vote:February 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
the silence is deafening
Vote:January 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am
justcheckin – firstly, it was reported by Fry’s mother in the Gisborne Herald in the weeks following those arrests, that she had registered her “always been a naughty boy” Sir Thomas Graham Fry as his father had wanted.
Fry purchased the SV Lonebird from the Arnesen or Arnesan Family Trust in March 1998, three months after the fact. According to Fry, Lonebird had been used as a backpackers illegally. She had always been painted black from the gold Longitudinal Water Line to the white deck railing. The 20 metre top sailed schooner had quite a number of round portholes but these were never inlayed with brass or painted gold.
Fry seemed to enjoy ‘pulling others chains’ about the matter. He most likely failed to mention to the Alridge’s that he was there (Picton) three months after the fact. Fry was questioned twice by police whom he later told “go and do your homework”
It was indeed the Lonebird that was deliberately sunk in Gisborne harbour prior to a violent storm in September 2000. The NZ police had only recently taken her into their ‘care’. I believe the 54 ton ferro-cement vessel was a threat to others moored in the harbour basin because she had pulled out a mooring pole (which hasn’t been replaced) during a mere surge 10 months earlier and also been let adrift several times, probably by children.
I hope that sheds some light on the mystery and breaks the silence!
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
It is a considerable time since David Farrar reinforced his belief in the infallibility of Paul Davison QC and his complete and utter honesty. this is the man who said at the trial of one of New Zealand’s moneyed people for Dishonesty offences “Instead of investigating Police start with the answer and collect evidence to match it.” In his blog on this topic He name dropped that John Coulter was his boss in Jenny Shipley’s office. Have read the book and all the others as well I can honestly say of all the books it is the most convincing of Scott Watson’s innocence. It is lightweight superficial coverage and revels many of the police shortcomings in the inquiry specially the extreme tunnel vision of DI Rob Pope. I guess it is not the blogger way to do any research but if Farrar had spent even half an hour online he would have found much material to show himself how easy it is for a police officer who has “gut feelings” is the most dangerous person in society as they are so convinced they are right and all others wrong that they can and do convince others they and only they are right. Pope had what is politely called noble cause corruption but corruption it is. He withheld evidence that did not suit his case, he lied in affidavits to the High Court, He manipulated the media, this is confirmed by Cate Brett in her monograph written for her doctorate at Canterbury University. I have spent 3 years studying several aspects of the case and can identify one glaring shortcoming. The Identification process Police used was totally inadequate biased and fell so far short of even worst practise if it wasn’t so serious it would be a joke. The normal practise is for police to assemble photos of people who closely resemble the WITNESS descriptions. In this case Police assembled photos who matched more closely their idea of who was guilty SCOTT WATSON. They had a photo of Scott Watson taken on New Years Eve around 9:30pm They never showed any witnesses that photo apart from Guy Wallace who was emphatic it was not the man He repeated this at Depositions and during the trial and Paul Davison belittled him for it. Rozlyn McNielly first saw the photo in Coulters book and knew instantly she had been lied to repeatedly by police who told her the man she picked as looked most like the man she remembered was Scott Watson This is totally against the best way of identifying alleged offenders. Photo montages are known to be the absolute worst method of photo identification with no redeeming features except it is the cheapest method. looking at a group of photos allows the witness to compare the faces and pick the one that most closely matches the face they remember. If it is a feature they remember like eyes then they will pick the eyes and ignore the rest of the face. That happened in this case, people remembered the half closed eyes of the long haired unshaven man. Police in the over one hundred photos taken of Scott Watson on January 12 found one of him half way through a blink. and from that Scott was identified by first McNielly the over a month later by Guy Wallace. Not one person picked Watson from the firs two montages that had on the first a normal photo and the second a photo taken (taken January 8 ) with a fish eye lens(taken January 12) the first photo ID was in mid March after many photos of Scott had been published and many defamatory storys appeared in the media and if Gerald Hope and Cate Brett are to be believe almost all came from DI Rob Pope in his meetings with his tame reporters and family liaison officers who were in the inner group of Pope pet policemen. Google Gary Wells to find some good info on police ID methods The system used here has about a 15-20% success rate, the method used iin many parts of the world now 85-90% success. This is the keystone cops type of investigation favoured by many on the right as it gets results and it does not matter if its not the righ result just create the evidence to suit. DI Pope did it and it worked and John Coulter PR man to the right wing praised him as a great Cop.
Jenira is correct in that Lonebird was not at Furneaux Lodge NYE 1997 but she was at Punga Cove about 3 miles away. Also at that time she did not belong to Sir Thomas Fry either He did not buy it until March.
Vote:December 4th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
How many of you arguing over the facts scream in your sleep?
I know a lot of people who scream in their sleep they all did horrible things in their lives. They all killed people in Vietnam.
If this part of the testimony provided by the cell-mate is true (which he suggests is true even if he lied on the stand about other parts of his testimony) then Scott Watson was involved in something so horrifying that his sub-conscious mind can not deal with the guilt.
Coupled with the fact that I’ve heard screaming in the night from battle hardened and trained killers it would not surprise me if Scott Watson was guilty of this murder.
However the court case was not well run
Its always easier to poke holes in a theory then it is to create one
Vote:January 4th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Poneke wrote:
“While the evidence against Watson is mostly circumstantial it is nonetheless fairly compelling. He exhibited a guilty mind.”
I can’t quite believe I read that.
Vote:April 1st, 2011 at 1:47 am
My name is mentioned a couple of times in the comments – ‘The Arlidges’ Whilst my wife and I did see a ketch with a blue stripe and brass portholes in February 1998, and spoke to a man from it who said he was at Furneaux Lodge on the fateful New Year’s eve, the ketch was NOT Lonebird, nor the man Sir Thomas Fry. It was a very well maintained, around 45 foot classic looking ketch, with very obvious elaborate ropework.
As far as we know the ketch has never been identified. The police claim they identified the boat we saw, but have never released the results of their investigation of our sighting.
Vote:December 13th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Poor Scott, another Christmas in jail.
Anyone who is familiar with sailing knows the “evidence” against Scott is trumped up. My partner used to clean his boat meticulously – including cassettes inside and out – and cut bits off the squabs when he felt it was needed. He’s not very tidy normally. Ooh, perhaps he did it then?
Vote: